Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Intelligent Design Book Cracks Bestseller List at Amazon.com
Evolution News & Views ^ | November 16, 2009 | Robert Crowther

Posted on 11/17/2009 8:18:52 AM PST by GodGunsGuts

Signature in the Cell makes 2009 list of top ten bestselling science books
SigCellBooks-sm.jpg
Today Amazon.com announced their bestselling books of 2009 and Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (HarperOne) by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer made the top ten in the science category. According to Amazon.com, books on its 2009 list of best sellers are “[r]anked according to customer orders through October. Only books published for the first time in 2009 are eligible.” The book's publisher, HarperOne, reports that the book is entering its fifth printing in as many months, and continues to sell strongly both online and in stores.

“Here we are, celebrating the 150th anniversary of the publication of Origin of Species, a book mistakenly assumed to have killed the design argument in science,” said Robert Crowther, director of communications at Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, which is the intelligent design research program directed by Dr. Meyer. “Did Darwin refute the design argument? No. And here’s a book about the science of intelligent design that shows how the design argument is being revived with powerful new arguments relevant to our culture.”

In Signature in the Cell Dr. Meyer shows that the digital code imbedded in DNA points powerfully to a designing intelligence and helps unravel a mystery that Darwin did not address: how did the very first life begin? He weaves together a journey of discovery with an argument for intelligent design and explains how intelligent design can be formulated as a rigorous scientific argument using the very same method of reasoning that Darwin used.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; US: Washington
KEYWORDS: bookreview; catholic; cellbiology; christian; christianity; christianright; creation; darwin; darwinism; dna; evangelical; evolution; geneticcode; genome; godsgravesglyphs; intelligentdesign; judaism; molecularbiology; protestant; science; signatureinthecell; stephenmeyer; topten
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-73 next last

1 posted on 11/17/2009 8:18:53 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: metmom; DaveLoneRanger; editor-surveyor; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; MrB; GourmetDan; Fichori; ...

Ping!


2 posted on 11/17/2009 8:20:15 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Does this mean they’ll have to create a separate category for Intelligent Design books?


3 posted on 11/17/2009 8:22:19 AM PST by rwa265 (Christ my Cornerstone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rwa265

If the evos get their way, yes...must stop ID books from cracking the science bestseller list at all costs!


4 posted on 11/17/2009 8:23:55 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

“Do not confuse materials like this from the Discovery Institute with actual scientific information. “


5 posted on 11/17/2009 8:31:22 AM PST by Eddeche
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Eddeche

Nice drive by statement, anything in depth to add?


6 posted on 11/17/2009 8:40:27 AM PST by RoadGumby (Ask me about Ducky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RoadGumby

“does this man have any ethics or moral conscience? He still references that worthless essay paper he wrote and with Richard Sternberg snuck in the back door at the Smithsonian related publication. Unfortunately for Meyers, the journals’s editors actually had it peer-reviewed and the verdict came back -that Meyers’ essay had no scientific merit and duly retracted Meyer’s essay from publication. You can no longer find it in publication, only on the Dishonesty Institute’s web site where Meyers flaunts it as his “peer reviewed” publication. Sad indeed, that his book relies on this type of gibberish. “


7 posted on 11/17/2009 8:41:36 AM PST by Eddeche
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Is this a science fiction or science non-fiction category?


8 posted on 11/17/2009 8:43:37 AM PST by the_devils_advocate_666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the_devils_advocate_666

Religious fantasy.


9 posted on 11/17/2009 8:45:11 AM PST by Eddeche
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: the_devils_advocate_666
Dr. Meyer's book documents how all evo-atheist origin of life experiments have utterly failed to explain the origin of life, whereas ID is the only known empirically verified source for complex, specified, digital codes. And since DNA is indeed a super-sophisticated digital code, the best explanation for its origin is in fact intelligent design.
10 posted on 11/17/2009 9:02:37 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
ID is the only known empirically verified source for complex, specified, digital codes.

What are the empirical metrics for intelligent design?

11 posted on 11/17/2009 9:04:25 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Richard Dawkins’ book is at #2, Robert Wright’s book on the “evolution of God” is #4, and Jerry Coyne’s book on why evolution is true is #5. Congratulations to Dr. Meyer on reaching #10.


12 posted on 11/17/2009 9:05:23 AM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eddeche

Peer review. Operative item there, I would think. As if a review group composed of pro-evo theologians would approve of a dissenting voice.


13 posted on 11/17/2009 9:15:40 AM PST by RoadGumby (Ask me about Ducky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Eddeche; the_devils_advocate_666; GodGunsGuts; RoadGumby

Yeah. Can you imagine?

Someone looks at the order and complexity of the universe and the life in it and sees the information coded in DNA and has the gall to conclude that it was designed instead of just happening to self-assemble against all odds.

I mean, really. How stupid can one get to think that it didn’t all just happen by itself?


14 posted on 11/17/2009 9:15:56 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Might be an interesting read. According to the reviews, Meyer approaches the subject from a strictly scientific perspective, not a religious one.


15 posted on 11/17/2009 9:17:59 AM PST by Rafterman ("If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting." -- Curtis LeMay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for the ping!


16 posted on 11/17/2009 9:22:42 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Do wings on a bird have a purpose? Fins on a fish? Eyes? Fingers? Lungs? The answer to these questions is obviously ‘yes’. So how do you explain purpose without ‘intent’ and how do explain intent without ‘intelligence’? How did that first cell ‘accidently’ climbing out of the primordial soup come up with the notion of reproducing itself? Apparently it must have been one stout organism to survive the intense heat. Funny that no living organism today could withstand the proposed heat of that ancient cauldron. That original lifeform must not have passed that characteristic on to it’s evolutionary offspring.


17 posted on 11/17/2009 9:29:31 AM PST by Right Brother
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Right Brother
Do wings on a bird have a purpose? Fins on a fish? Eyes? Fingers? Lungs? The answer to these questions is obviously ‘yes’. So how do you explain purpose without ‘intent’ and how do explain intent without ‘intelligence’? How did that first cell ‘accidently’ climbing out of the primordial soup come up with the notion of reproducing itself? Apparently it must have been one stout organism to survive the intense heat. Funny that no living organism today could withstand the proposed heat of that ancient cauldron. That original lifeform must not have passed that characteristic on to it’s evolutionary offspring.

The claim was that it was empirically verified. That means it has been demonstrated by some empirical measurement, and I asked what the metrics are that were used to verify it.

Do you wish to answer the question that was asked, and supply those metrics?

18 posted on 11/17/2009 9:59:19 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Rafterman

I read it from cover to cover, and found it excellent.


19 posted on 11/17/2009 10:16:51 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
"Meyer shows that the digital code imbedded in DNA points powerfully to a designing intelligence

The universe is analog ... all organic and inorganic matter is analog ... All living mattter is analog ... All DNA is analog ..

Meyer's use of the term "digital" tells me that Meyer is an idiot.

20 posted on 11/17/2009 10:23:16 AM PST by OldNavyVet (A word to the wise. Don't drink the KoolAid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

==Meyer’s use of the term “digital” tells me that Meyer is an idiot.

Tell me, if after calling Dr. Meyer’s an “idiot” it turns out that you are COMPLETELY WRONG, and Dr. Meyer’s is 100% CORRECT, wouldn’t that mean that you are the one who fits your characterization of Dr. Meyer?


21 posted on 11/17/2009 11:37:04 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet
The universe is analog ... all organic and inorganic matter is analog ... All living mattter is analog ... All DNA is analog ..

Ever hear of Digital Tape?

22 posted on 11/17/2009 11:41:40 AM PST by celmak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: celmak

or Planck’s constant


23 posted on 11/17/2009 11:44:55 AM PST by Hegewisch Dupa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: onedoug

ping


24 posted on 11/17/2009 12:00:48 PM PST by windcliff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Bump!


25 posted on 11/17/2009 12:08:45 PM PST by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bomb-a administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: celmak

“Ever hear of Digital Tape? “

Ever heard of an analog to digital converter being used to store analog music on something?

Guess what they called that something.


26 posted on 11/17/2009 12:12:49 PM PST by OldNavyVet (A word to the wise. Don't drink the Obama KoolAid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Eddeche

How does it feel to be a nose picking liar?

What is it about the truth that makes you pick your nose and post your snot here?


27 posted on 11/17/2009 12:13:25 PM PST by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bomb-a administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

==Meyer’s use of the term “digital” tells me that Meyer is an idiot.

Still waiting for your reply. Would it be fair to say that it is you who are deserving of your characterization of Dr. Meyer if it turns out that you are completely wrong (and he is 100% correct) re: DNA being a digital code???


28 posted on 11/17/2009 12:17:44 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Digital means 0s and 1s are stored. DNA is analog. Show us how you get zeros and ones out of DNA.


29 posted on 11/17/2009 12:34:03 PM PST by Wacka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Digital means 0s and 1s are stored. DNA is analog. Show us how you get zeros and ones out of DNA.


30 posted on 11/17/2009 12:34:18 PM PST by Wacka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: windcliff

Not currently in the Library. I think I heard the author though a few weeks ago on Prager or Medved. Very interesting.

Thanks.

Ready for that U-2 ride?


31 posted on 11/17/2009 12:36:06 PM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Beep!


32 posted on 11/17/2009 12:53:01 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Please a look at post 7.

It supports my contention that Meyer is an idiot.

Feel better?


33 posted on 11/17/2009 12:54:28 PM PST by OldNavyVet (A word to the wise. Don't drink the KoolAid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: onedoug

Ready for that U-2 ride?

What’s that? Driving with a cat in the car?


34 posted on 11/17/2009 12:56:12 PM PST by windcliff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet
We will get to #7 in a moment. In the meantime, please answer the question. You called Dr. Meyer an "idiot" for supposedly being in error about DNA being digital. If it turns that you are completely wrong (and Dr. Meyer is 100% correct), wouldn't it be more appropriate to call you the idiot?
35 posted on 11/17/2009 1:12:43 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: RoadGumby

Exactly. Liberals continue to elicit peer review arguments as if they offer some kind of remote validity.

I’ve asked the liberals on FR if a peer review of an article were done without the name attached to the work, how is it the “peers” would know if the scientist was creationist or evolutionist?

crickets.


36 posted on 11/17/2009 2:47:26 PM PST by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; Right Man; GodGunsGuts; metmom

Huh?

Why is it liberals continue to demand all these rules be met that they don’t intend to keep themselves?

Peer review...then “measurable, replicable”, etc. but when it’s pointed out no other theory like multiverse theory or string theory be required to meet these standards, we see endless excuse-making and hand waving and back-peddaling.

And now we see demands for...

“empirically verified” and “metrics” ???

Where are the...ummmm “empirically verified metrics” for life oozing out of muck all by itself? Let alone all life supposedly coming from this single-celled first organism into all the complex life-forms we know today.


37 posted on 11/17/2009 2:58:08 PM PST by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: tpanther; tacticalogic; Right Man; GodGunsGuts; metmom
And now we see demands for...

“empirically verified” and “metrics” ???

GGG made that claim in an earlier post. See his phrasing.

38 posted on 11/17/2009 3:03:56 PM PST by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
No one demanded it. It was freely submitted that the evidence exists. I simply asked what the metrics were.

Do you think you can simply make up claims that you have empirically verified evidence for things that there are no empirical metrics to even measure by and nobody should be able to question it?

39 posted on 11/17/2009 3:04:53 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: tpanther; tacticalogic; Right Man; GodGunsGuts; metmom
The words were ...whereas ID is the only known empirically verified source...

That's where it came from.

40 posted on 11/17/2009 3:05:53 PM PST by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Here are excerpts from a review of the book on Amazon.com

By DK "DK"

I've skimmed through this tome of IDiotic nonsense. Meyer's essay, yes, essay because he's not a scientist, biologist, evolutionist, nor did he do any original research for this tripe, he simply grabbed other people's work and massaged it to read the way he wanted, i.e., Darwin, science, and evolution cannot possibly be correct. It must all be the work of his supernatural being, i.e., god, that did it all. Sorry, that admission is no secret, that's what he tells all the church groups he talks to on his circut.

The editor's comments stated:
"A leading proponent of intelligent design in the scientific community, Meyer presents a compelling case that will generate heated debate, command attention, and find new adherents from leading scientists around the world."

In reality this book has done none of the above per the editor's glowing (but highly partisan comments). The book and the effort behind it are a total loss - the author continues to peddle it to the church groups he addresses, the scientifically ignorant choir to whom he preaches.

41 posted on 11/17/2009 3:41:39 PM PST by OldNavyVet (A word to the wise. Don't drink the KoolAid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet
Ever heard of an analog to digital converter being used to store analog music on something?

Thank you for making my point.

42 posted on 11/17/2009 4:12:01 PM PST by celmak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet
Meyer's essay, yes, essay because he's not a scientist, biologist, evolutionist...

Now you have to be an Evo to comment on evolution... LOL!

43 posted on 11/17/2009 4:25:03 PM PST by celmak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet
Wow, you are quoting a person who acknowledges to have only skimread Dr. Meyer's book, and who doesn't even bother to make an attempt at refuting the book, as an authority on the same. Not very convincing, OldNavy.

And btw, you STILL haven't answered my question. I'm starting to think it's because you already know the answer will make you look bad. I'll ask it again just in case you're one of those people who needs to take extra time for simple questions sink in.

I repeat...you called Dr. Meyer an "idiot" for supposedly being in error about DNA being digital. If it turns that you are completely wrong (and Dr. Meyer is 100% correct), wouldn't it be more appropriate to call you the idiot?

44 posted on 11/17/2009 5:16:14 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]


Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design Signature in the Cell:
DNA and the Evidence
for Intelligent Design

by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer

Kindle
Paperback
search Amazon

website


45 posted on 11/17/2009 5:39:17 PM PST by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/__Since Jan 3, 2004__Profile updated Monday, January 12, 2009)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
If you knew anything about the peer review process you would know that as part of the review the author, and the scientist conducting the review are all unknown to each other.

Photobucket

46 posted on 11/17/2009 9:09:09 PM PST by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, Theres a higher power ,They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts; OldNavyVet
Dr. Meyer if it turns out that you are completely wrong (and he is 100% correct) re: DNA being a digital code???

I agree that DNA is digital, in that it's primary structure (simple sequence) encoding is in the form of discrete rather than continuous values, i.e. particular nucleotides.

But the "100%" emphatic goes too far. Although many of the aspects have, I think, yet to be well understood, DNA certainly also functions in analogue modes. My understanding of this subject matter is poor, but it seems pretty clear to me that things like, for instance, the complex manner in which DNA is packed and unpacked, must have a lot to do with tertiary structure (basically the 3-D shape of DNA).

This is kind of ironic, really, since you often say things like this:

And let’s not forget the neo-Darwinian reductionist beads-on-a-string notion of genetics is being completely overturned by the new biology.

And yet here you are, treating DNA as if it's digital "beads-on-a-string" aspect represented "100%" of it's significance and all of how it's functions are encoded.

Equally ironic, you've also frequently derided "evolutionists" for assuming that "junk" (properly "non-coding") DNA is without function. (As with the "beads-on-a-string" argument, evolutionists don't actually assume this, you just say they do in furtherance of straw-man abuse.)

But certainly many aspects of non-coding DNA function have to do with analogue (continuously variable) factors, rather than digital (discrete, discontinuously variable) factors. For instance the functional significance of repeating DNA is obviously related to continuously variable factors such as the length and number of repeats.

47 posted on 11/18/2009 12:24:28 AM PST by Stultis (Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia; Democrats always opposed waterboarding as torture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
...made the top ten in the science category...

Ooooooooo....that must mean something. Means to me that they allowed Creationism into the "science" category.

Dr. Meyer shows that the digital code imbedded in DNA points powerfully to a designing intelligence and helps unravel a mystery that Darwin did not address: how did the very first life begin?

Geeee....Dawin's book didn't address it because.....the origin of life has nothing to do with the differentiation of the species through evolution.

Who exactly is this mysterious designer?

48 posted on 11/18/2009 5:12:49 AM PST by ElectricStrawberry (Didja know that Man walked with 100+ species of large meat eating dinos within the last 4,351 years?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ElectricStrawberry
“Dr. Meyer shows that the digital code imbedded in DNA points powerfully to a designing intelligence and helps unravel a mystery that Darwin did not address: how did the very first life begin?

Geeee....Dawin’s book didn't address it because.....the origin of life has nothing to do with the differentiation of the species through evolution.

Who exactly is this mysterious designer? “

Firstly, Meyer is agreeing with you that Darwin and evolution do not address the origin of life, and he is not being critical of either for not addressing it.

Secondly, ID does not attempt to identify the designer. Meyer admits that his personal belief is God, but that he cannot prove it, and ID does not try to prove it. None of that really detracts from the position that the complex, specific information in the DNA code is best explained, based on what we know now, by the intervention of an intelligent agent. We have seen such information come from intelligent agents, and only intelligent agents, and hence it stands now as the best explanation. If a better means for the origin of such information is demonstrated, then it will prevail I would presume. He attempts to show how chance and natural law does not explain it.

49 posted on 11/18/2009 7:50:18 AM PST by Mudtiger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

Comment #50 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-73 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson